It's just unbelievable to me that a government could stop you from expressing your opinion. Such an outcome would mean it's time to go back to basics and come up with a new social contract. I mean dayum, talk about violating human rights! I guess in this, America is like Churchill's democracy, the worst possible country, except for all the others.

I'm wondering if a parallel here is with the waning days of the Third Reich, when the Gestapo became more and more vigilant about ideological purity among the country's leadership. (Guderion was questioned for two days for possibly supporting the wrong officer. This was when he was Chief of Staff.)

Before we hear some more 'French are cowards' nonsense, may I point out that in the single battle of Verdun in WW1 the French lost more men than the US in the whole of WW2. In even the smallest French village, you'll find a monument to those who've died in countless wars. French soil is drenched with the blood of it's soldiers. They have little appetite for conflict because unlike Americans, they've seen so much of it right at home.

Seeing how the U.S. has a habit of taking on far weaker opponents, or waiting before the dangerous ones have been suitably weakened, I would think twice before using the word 'cowardice' too liberally

The bigger problem is if he APOLOGIZES and PAYS the fine. If he refuses to and stands his ground, he will set a NEW TEMPLATE for tough white male behavior. If not, the other side will only get more aggressive.

Gallic humor aside, let's see if there's any Gallic honor and courage left. Not during WWII and not now, I'm afraid.

"Suppose, then, that some person does indeed find the petition "scandaleuse," not on the basis of misreading, but because of what it actually says. Let us suppose that this person finds Faurisson's ideas offensive, even horrendous, and finds his scholarship to be a scandal. Let us suppose further that he is correct in these conclusions -- whether he is or not is plainly irrelevant in this context. Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was "scandaleuse" because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.

.. In the case of Faurisson, however, defense of his civil rights is not officially approved doctrine -- far from it -- so that segments of the intelligentsia, who are ever eager to line up and march off to the beat of the drums, do not perceive any need to take the stance accepted without question in the case of Soviet dissidents. In France, there may well be other factors: perhaps a lingering guilt about disgraceful behavior of substantial sectors under Vichy, the failure to protest the French wars in Indochina, that lasting impact of Stalinism and more generally Leninist doctrines, the bizarre and dadaistic character of certain streams of intellectual life in postwar France which makes rational discourse appear to be such an odd and unintelligible pastime, the currents of anti-Semitism that have exploded into violence."

"...In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack levelled against Faurisson. When the "no holocaust" historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois -- obviously, pure provocation -- the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated). As far as I am aware, much the same is true in England or Australia, countries which, like the United States, have a live civil libertarian tradition. Butz and the rest are sharply criticized and condemned, but without any attack on their civil rights, to my knowledge. There is no need, in these countries, for an innocuous petition such as the one that is found "scandaleuse" in France, and if there were such a petition, it would surely not be attacked outside of limited and insignificant circles. The comparison is, again, illuminating. One should try to understand it. One might argue, perhaps, that Nazism and anti-Semitism are much more threatening in France. I think that this is true, but it is simply a reflection of the same factors that led to the Leninism of substantial sectors of the French intelligentsia for a long period, their contempt for elementary civil libertarian principles today, and their current fanaticism in beating the drums for crusades against the Third World. There are, in short, deep-seated totalitarian strains that emerge in various guises, a matter well worth further consideration, I believe."

I don't know why you guys are acting like this is solely a French phenomenon that is indictative of "French cowardice." He may not have been fined in the U.S, but the ensuing witch-hunt and defamation of character over the remarks would have been more intense. At least the French banned the stupid burqa, that's more than you'll ever see from us. I have actually seen a woman at the supermarket in one of those hideous things here is Alabama of all places. At least they attempt to enforce their immigration laws after seeing what a mess it turned out to be.

The French were unfortunate that they did not have a channel between them and the German army (unlike a certain other country). Without that fortuitous channel would we be talking about British cowardice now?

I know they dont have freedom of speech in Europe as we appreciate it here, but this really is grotesque. This is deeply dissapointing.

Its as if the Euro-crats in Brussels have been able to silence opposition by making opposing speech to their aims (a non-European Europe) illegal. The opposition to the multi-cult-superstate has been criminalized.

"The French were unfortunate that they did not have a channel between them and the German army (unlike a certain other country). Without that fortuitous channel would we be talking about British cowardice now?

If there were no channel between Britain and France, I think the British would have put up a fiercer fight in France when the Germans invaded.

Sweden is arguably worse than France, in its criminal codes that make mere mention of racial disparities in crime an offense for which jail time is mandatory.

Think on that.

There is no "there" to "go back to" as La Raza activists advise us. Whites are supposed to "go back to Europe" where ... they're rapidly becoming the minority.

The real reason is why the birth-rate has dropped among Whites but not much among Muslims in Europe or Mexicans in the US or American Blacks. Steve makes much of the Affordable Family Formation, and while it is definitely a factor, I think it does not explain the most powerful effect.

Muslims and Mexicans and Blacks don't even need employment, and for the latter two, husbands for family formation. Rather, I think the sexual marketplace like the global one for labor, has serious imbalances.

A manufacturer can leverage ultra-cheap Chinese labor to make, say, teapots in China. Searching for a new one to replace my old, I ended up spending $100 to get a non-Chinese (German) one. Not liking lead and cadmium in my coffee and tea.

In just the same, White women (and Asian women) can leverage a global supply of men, for the best. We can say this, White women find their White male age peers not worthy of having kids by, at the peak fertility, ages 20-30. [Actually fertility peaks late teens, but thats another issue obviously.]

Given how much women love babies, this is remarkable. The "Is Your White Baby Racist" is really a ding of having kids by Beta and uber-Beta White males. The traits needed to make a competitive, wealthy society, mostly grinding attention to detail, are un-sexy compared to being a dominant a-hole of which the global market and global movement of masses of non-White peoples make available.

I do know this -- with White women being swing and decisive voters, if they wanted to end anti-White actions/racism/discrimination, it would end rapidly. That you never see women campaigning for the end of it is itself highly instructive.

This needs to be turned around. White's need to start claiming that they are discriminated against in the name of indigenous rights. Start arresting and fining liberals and they will change their tune real quick. Fine the SPLC.

BamaGirl said:"He may not have been fined in the U.S, but the ensuing witch-hunt and defamation of character over the remarks would have been more intense."Very likely. Hortefeux made similar remarks in the past and Sarkozy always supported him. They have been friends since their college days.

"At least the French banned the stupid burqa, that's more than you'll ever see from us."It hasn't been banned yet. The fuss about the burqa looks like a typical Sarkozy ploy: throw a bone to the rednecks whose votes he needs, providing it costs nothing to the rich (who are his real base).

When I was a college student in France in the 70's, communist students stuck posters on the walls, with a sentence by Danton, one of the revolutionaries of 1789: "Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté" (No liberty for the enemies of liberty). The irony of the sentence (they were communists, and the USSR still existed) passed them by, and it probably still does.

Until recently it wasn't uncommon in France to hear educated people tell things like "There are neonazi TV channels in the USA, therefore the USA is a fascist country." I don't know if there are neonazi TV channels in the USA. If there are any, they are certainly not watched by more than a handful of people. But the logic was "If they allow it, they approve of it."

As we say here in France: "Nul n'est prophète en son pays" (Nobody is a prophet in his own country). Voltaire is most misunderstood in his native country, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said:"whose brilliant idea was it to import all those Muslim immigrants to France? Talk about setting yourself up for a conflict-filled future.... :-/ "France is doomed. Native French children are a minority already in the Paris region. How do we know this, in a country where ethnic statistics are illegal? According to official data, 54% of the newborns in the Paris region are at risk for drepanocytosis, a hereditary disease of people with Black African blood.

Vernunft said..."Americans, for the record, aren't doing much better in standing up to this kind of thing."

We certainly are not. "Racist" or "hate" speech has not yet been criminalized but those convicted of either in the court of public opinion are stigmatized and marginalized to a degree unimaginable even 20 years ago.

According to Noam Chomsky: "Australia ... like the United States, [has] a live civil libertarian tradition."

Sorry, Professor Chomsky, but Australia has never had anything of the sort. There is not only no legal protection, First-Amendment-style, for free speech in Australia; but worse still, Australia's libel laws are even more crazily strict than Britain's and arguably more deranged than Enver Hoxha's.

Every American to whom I've ever mentioned the following has simply laughed at me, but it happens to be true: some decades ago, one Australian state (New South Wales) actually seriously considered extending the existing (and already draconian) libel laws to protect dead people.

If I were to put my full name to this post, it is entirely possible that the Australian Federal Police would come and kick my front door down.

At least most Swedes don't pretend to be anything other than a bunch of p.c. helots.

Sigh. Whiskey, is there any phenomenon that you can't conveniently explain as a symptom of white women "not liking betas?"

The only reason women act more PC is because they are more in-tuned with passing social trends and always have been. Women are more afraid of being socially stigmatized by holding unpopular views and will therefore keep their thoughts to themselves. I know plenty of women who privately hold opinions that aren't much different than those expressed on this board.

Whiskey:"I do know this -- with White women being swing and decisive voters, if they wanted to end anti-White actions/racism/discrimination, it would end rapidly. That you never see women campaigning for the end of it is itself highly instructive."

I see women in English Defence League demos on TV. Obviously that's a small minority.

BamaGirl:"The only reason women act more PC is because they are more in-tuned with passing social trends"

I think that's right - most women seem more inclined to go along with whatever the dominant ideology is.

Where I come from, Northern Ireland, most Protestant women are staunchly Unionist (pro-British), most Catholic women are staunchly Nationalist (anti-British), which is another way of saying that both are ethnonationalist for their respective groups. Conversely, most Swedish women are devoutly Politically Correct, and so on.

Most women seem less inclined to risk unpopularity/ostracism, and higher-IQ women are possibly less reflective on politics/ieology than many men of similar IQ.

Obviously Whiskey has a point that the Sex & the City lifestyle does appeal to many high-IQ women, until they find themselves alone at 40, but outside of a few metropolitan centres, few get the chance to actually live it.

BTW there is one other white child on my street AIR, the son of a lower class single mother. Meanwhile my Pakistani Muslim next door neighbour has around 6 kids by two marriages. My neighbour on the other side is a white divorced man, his late-teenage daughter sometimes visits.

We weren't talking about British cowardice because it wasn't in the article. But since they've rolled over just as much for the racial grievance mongers, yep, Brits are cowards too.

Well that's strange, considering that you guys have a President elected on the back of racial guilt. Let's not forget that with barely a word of protest raised in public from 'conservatives' over there, the US will probably get to white minority status long before Britain reaches 25-30% minority status. Last I checked the 'transition' is almost complete in California, New Mexico and Arizona and is running at full steam in Texas and Nevada (and that's not even taking the fact that half of Puerto Rico currently resides in New York into account. I hear their statehood is coming up soon).

"I see women", Simon from UK says, "in English Defence League demos on TV. Obviously that's a small minority."

All right, I know little about the EDL, but what age are these EDL women, mostly? If they're grandmothers they're not going to have political clout in a yoof-obsessed media culture, any more than the tweedy matrons of the Countryside Alliance ever did.

On at least one occasion middle-aged and elderly ladies at a British Women's Institute branch gave the visiting Tony Blair (still Prime Minister at the time) utter hell; but this hostility did him no political harm whatever, because the female demographic that looks and thinks like the Queen is now absolutely powerless in Britain anyway. The average media apparatchik thought: "Oh well, it's just a few old biddies of the Mary Whitehouse type waving their handbags threateningly, how many divisions have they got?" and he went on crawling to Phony Tony same as before.

One thing we forget at our peril: in practice "empowering women" - whether through hard power or through soft power - means, throughout the West, empowering individual pre-menopausal women, with, say, Sarah Palin and Sarah Jessica Horseface at the upper end of the permissible female age spectrum, Cameron Diaz around the middle, and Miley Cyrus at the bottom end. We may like it or not, but that's how it is.

As for France, perhaps a country that can produce Carla Bruni instead of Hillary Clinton is not beyond all hope, the persecution of Hortefeux notwithstanding.

I rented the French (set in the future 2013) sci-fi movie "District 13 Ultimatum".I've never been to Paris before but maybe in some parts of Paris the future is now, as there were not very many French to be seen.

As for France, perhaps a country that can produce Carla Bruni instead of Hillary Clinton is not beyond all hope, the persecution of Hortefeux notwithstanding. Nope. Carla Bruni is Italian...

She's an exhibitionistic, shameless, promiscuous, affirmative action supporter, born in a rich Italian family. She married a man twelve years her senior, and four inches shorter, whom she had known for only two months. The fact that he was the president of France counted for nothing, obviously. Incidentally, she says she's left-wing.

Hillary Clinton is one of the last WASPs with real power in the US government, don't be too harsh on her.

"I know plenty of women who privately hold opinions that aren't much different than those expressed on this board."

I does not matter what these women think in private if in public they manifest the socially-correct view. The whole point of the Leftist ideology is to drive opposing views out of the public square. Once that happens, it does not matter what people think in private.

Perhaps the remark had to do with election math. I don't know what system the French use for municipal elections but us Nordic folks use systems like d'Hondt. You vote for your favourite candidate. If he/she does not make it, your vote still benefits the other candidates from the same party, as calculated by complex formulae.

So all parties try to broaden their field with a few immigrants, retirees, youngsters, something for everyone, to attract extra votes. Not too many, mind you, lest you be known as the Arab party, or the Retiree party, or whatever.

So, like the minister says, you need one of them. Everybody knows that.

Whiskey is quite wrong about women not caring for Beta Males. A lot of it is situational. In times of emergency they may be attracted to strong males but other more peaceful times (like now) they can prefer the more domesticated betas.

I give you Kevin Costner a truly great portrayer of beta male heroes. Think of his great roles like his recent Open Range western or Bull Durham or Field of Dreams. He is the guy who reacts to events and follows some other man rather than the guy who steps forward and takes over. That guy was John Wayne.

When Costner has tried to be that "leader of men" or the independent loner in movies like Robin Hood or Waterworld or The Postman he looks ridiculous. He was perfect as the lowest ranking cowboy in Silverado but much less convincing as the alpha cowboy in Wyatt Earp.

Costner is Mr. Beta. Do you really think he's not attractive to women?

I can criticize the French a lot, but 'cowardly'? Not fair. If they seemed too inclined to surrender in WW II it's a simple matter of a great many French being pro-Axis in the first place. Many were eager to end hostilities so they could help the Germans fight Stalin.

She's an exhibitionistic, shameless, promiscuous, affirmative action supporter, born in a rich Italian family. She married a man twelve years her senior, and four inches shorter, whom she had known for only two months. The fact that he was the president of France counted for nothing, obviously. Incidentally, she says she's left-wing.

In addition, she has recently been destroying her face with plastic surgery like Joan Rivers and that other cat-faced woman.

Bamagirl -

"I know plenty of women who privately hold opinions that aren't much different than those expressed on this board."

I does not matter what these women think in private if in public they manifest the socially-correct view. The whole point of the Leftist ideology is to drive opposing views out of the public square. Once that happens, it does not matter what people think in private.

Actually, it does matter. If a woman is non-PC, she'll tend to "praise with faint damns" so to speak.

In other words, PC women will be really out with their PCness, especially if there's something really non-PC that is brought up (being quick to condemn "racism" is probably the easiest one to watch for), but non-PC women won't say anything in those types of situations.

1) Hurricane KatrinaHello. You can't spell Katrina without at least one Alpha.

2) The Israeli invasion of the aid shipBetas and Herbs fire Katyusha rockets and run away. Alphas peacock in their uniforms and do alpha stuff like drive Merkava tanks through daycare centers and shoot up relief ships. Sometimes to prove your uber-alpha you have to attack your best ally's assets/ships as well.

3)Galarraga losing his perfect game.Hello again. He was running Game. Within a game. The ump was clearly showing he was alpha and Gallaraga was beta, causing gina tingles in the stands.

The Swedish code of lawsThe Swedish government intends to change the Swedish constitution. The contents of the government bill gives every reason for concern. The Ministry of Justice describes the amendments as extensive, and they are indeed so extensive that they in practice reshape all the public power. The main function of the constitutional government bill is to further centralize the political power to the hands of the State. The main features that are alarming are: - There is a far-reaching discussion on why it is a good idea to restrict the free right of nomination at general elections. - There will be a stronger barrier against small parties at the municipal level.

- The municipal self-government has a long history and is thus put an end.

- The principle of public access to official records is abolished for backup copies.

- Introduction of secret government meetings, that have always been public, this means that the government can legislate without the presence of the supervision of the public. Thus people cannot know anything about how or why the MPs voted as they did.

- The power of the State is dissociated even more from the people since you cannot bring a lawsuit against an MP at office without the permission of the parliament with a five sixth majority.

- The cabinet ministers must be Swedish citizens. Earlier they had to have been Swedish citizens for 10 years in order to get such an appointment.

- On the same time a policy that demands immigrants’ assimilation is rendered impossible. They get a constitutional right to be excused from becoming Swedish and learn the Swedish language.

- Swedes get the same rights as illegal immigrants. The word “citizen” is changed into “everybody”.

- The right to use the military within the country against Swedes. This is contrary to what the military authorities themselves want. .

It also shows that the resolution was taken with acclamation and not by the ordinary way of voting: by pressing the yes or no button. By doing so, the decision of a single MP cannot be questioned – they are anonymous. We cannot know who voted for what. Acclamation means that there is no objections whatsoever among the 349 MPs, something that itself is serious. coup!

The last – but not least – shocking part of this is that nothing has been mentioned about this in the Swedish media. Are the journalists so incompetent that they find the princess wedding more interesting? Or are they trying to conceal something from the people?

The constitutional amendment paves the way for the abolition of every part of the Swedish parliamentary democracy. Sweden is, in short, in bad trouble – economically, socially and constitutionally.

teacher.paris sed:The constitutional amendment paves the way for the abolition of every part of the Swedish parliamentary democracy. Sweden is, in short, in bad trouble – economically, socially and constitutionally.

I'm sorry about us losing those beautiful Swedish babes as a cultural fixture. But apart from that I couldn’t give a shit. You see us white South Africans were at the receiving end of this multicultural crusade for more than 40 years. Swedish people supported every conceivable terror-organization and political subversion in Southern Africa with copious amounts of money. Olaf Palme comes to mind. The result is that we have been reduced to refugees, either within SA or outside. The only thing whites there still care about is keeping the syndicates off their backs and protecting their wifes and daughters from being rape. The country is basically f.ed by now. So why should the demise of Sweden worry me? Maybe after all there is a God and some justice?

>Its as if the Euro-crats in Brussels have been able to silence opposition by making opposing speech to their aims (a non-European Europe) illegal. The opposition to the multi-cult-superstate has been criminalized.<

Yes. And say to say, this is old news. How long has this been going on? Years.

Good point about the totalitarian/statist mindset. "What is not allowed is forbidden." It's the opposite of the spirit behind the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. Of course, our Constitution is frequently disregarded nowadays.

>The main function of the constitutional government bill is to further centralize the political power to the hands of the State.[...]The word "citizen" is changed into "everybody".<

If everyone is a citizen, no one is, and there is no definable country. The nation is thereby wrecked.

Decentralization means people governing among themselves (say at the canton level). Centralization of power is necessary if a very small group wants to control - or in this case, effectively destroy - a much larger group.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.